Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Jacob v. Biden

Northern District of CaliforniaEdward M. ChenDecided June 8, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00261

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
Pursuant to President Biden’s directive, DOS has ordered that consular posts are to process applications without regard for P.P. 10014.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 2,196 immigrant visa applicants
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a form of restorative justice via an order mandating the expeditious adjudication of their backlogged applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Dismiss this case as moot as it pertains to the family preference and IR-5 Plaintiffs. The Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 16), Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Docket No. 31)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Government moves to dismiss this case as moot under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
However, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to DV- 2021 Plaintiffs, because these Plaintiffs continue to possess standing.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
However, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to DV- 2021 Plaintiffs, because these Plaintiffs continue to possess standing.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
However, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to DV- 2021 Plaintiffs, because these Plaintiffs continue to possess standing.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
In effect, there are lingering delays suffered by visa applicants whose applications have been frozen for over a year by P.P. 10014 and the No-Visa Policy.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This “jumping of the line” would displace other applicants who are documentarily qualified and waiting for interviews.
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
In effect, the claim for broad classwide redress has effectively been mooted by the rescission of P.P. 10014.
212(f) proclamation Proclamation 10014 Read by a model
In effect, there are lingering delays suffered by visa applicants whose applications have been frozen for over a year by P.P. 10014 and the No-Visa Policy.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
IR-5 applicants (parents of U.S. citizens) were subject to P.P. 10014.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-00261
Filed
January 11, 2021
Ended
July 13, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
183 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.